A good start would be a "loser pays" system similar to what they have in much of Europe. It gives people who legitimately have a strong case a chance to find a lawyer, and discourages frivolous lawsuits and lawsuits aimed only at intimidation (so-called "SLAP" lawsuits).
Not caring and not being naive are two very different things. There are ways to change certain aspects of the system, but appealing to Congress's sense of morality is not one of them--especially in an era of ridiculously expensive election campaigns that absolutely depend on corporate and special interest sponsorship.
Most lawyers work for money. It's nice to think that the little guy in the right can take on the big guy and wins in court. But real life isn't a movie. Most of the time the little guy fighting a case like this ends up broke, whether he wins or loses. It's also nice to think that he could just go to the EFF and get a lawyer for free, but something tells me it's not that simple (I suspect the EFF is already swamped with what few lawyers they have).
The only way to "score a jackpot" in a case like this is to have it declared a civil rights case (meaning the losing party has to pay the lawyer's fees of the winner), and that doesn't seem very likely here.
Sure, I'll just go to Congress and explain to them that they should pass a law that will be universally opposed by the corporations that give them millions in campaign contributions every year--because it's the right thing to do.
Either way it's a lose-lose situation. Don't buy the game, the developer will go console-only and abandon the franchise on PC's. Buy the game, and they'll be like "See, people don't mind our DRM." About the only way to win is to support smaller studios and lesser-known franchises that don't include draconian DRM, but that will mean having to suck it up and give up on the bigger franchises that most gamers want. You're not going to be able to keep your Call of Duty franchises or your EA Sports titles if you do this.
Did this guy really think he could just give away the data that Facebook sells (or intends to sell) to third parties and NOT have them sue him for it? It's no secret that the business model of most of the social sites and big search engines factor in the massive amounts of data they collect on users as a major corporate asset, to be used internally for data mining and also sold (supposedly after being anonymized) to advertisers and other third parties. It takes a babe in the woods to think he can just waltz in and take that away with a "But your robot.txt didn't say I *couldn't* do it" defense, without expecting a big legal fight.
Is the guy in the right? Probably. Would he have a case? Probably. Does either of those facts matter if he doesn't have the big $ needed to hire lawyers and fight through several courts? Nope.
I know that romanticizing the noble soldiers and Marines is all the rage, but I've worked with a lot of these guys, and some of them *are* actually scum. That's not most of them, but there are more than a few I've met who actually seem to get their rocks off on trigger time, and are WAY too trigger happy for an environment with so many civilians walking around. Why do you think the military command makes them get permission to start shooting, or has rules of engagement in the first place?
Now that's it's been posted, they likely won't bother with targeting this particular video (it's already all over the place). But you can bet they'll be targeting Wikileaks in the future though, to prevent other embarrassing videos and documents from being released.
I was under the impression that gunships were primarily sold to the military as tank and armor killers. The kind of ammo they use would seem to be overkill for civilian targets. They would be better off carrying smaller caliber ammo and more of it if that was their main function.
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
It's fine to develop a whole new category of devices. But if you're going to do so, it follows that you should start by at least defining who your audience is and what the purpose of the device is. And many of us simply can't figure out the point of this thing. Of course the die-hard Macheads would happily shell out cash if Steve Jobs took a crap on a plate and sold it as the iShit, but why should someone who's not just an Apple fan in general want one?
So it's not an iPhone or a netbook, okay that's fine, but what exactly is it then and why should we buy it? Aside from some typical Apple doublespeak, I've yet to hear a good answer.
I think we should be a little more mature than to spend the significant resources needed to mount a manned Mars mission just so we can say "Hey, we did it!" And, even so, it's inaccurate to say that the early space race was about saying "We did it!" anyway. It would be more accurate to say that it was Soviets saying "Take that, capitalists!" followed by Americans saying "Take that, commies!" Only after-the-fact did we figure out that those satellites that we sent up there to show-up each other actually had practical uses beyond just the pissing contest.
A manned mission to the moon or Mars has little in the way of practical value, by comparison. In retrospect, Sputnik was WAY more important than Apollo. Sputnik paved the way for communications satellites, GPS, etc. Apollo did give us some useful mirrors on the moon, but they could have been put there much easier with unmanned craft.
Slashdot on April 1st is like a werewolf. It turns from something cool and likable into something hideous and evil for a 24-hour period. Thank god it only comes once a year and not once every full moon.
Movies like "Men in Black" have a more self-conscience sense of humor about themselves that earns them a great deal more tolerance. Movies like "Independence Day" that sell themselves as more serious action movies are expected to have a least a little plausibility in the real world. Aside from the usual problems with a weak script and poor direction, it probably didn't help that Independence Day was loaded with obnoxious product placement (it was like watching a 2 hour long Apple commercial) and other such cynical nods to the fact that the movie was just a crass money grab made by people who could have cared less whether the movie was actually any good or not.
Unfortunately, decades of corporate dominance in the western world have made an embargo of China pretty much impossible. Any country that tried this would face economic collapse (even the whole EU united probably couldn't pull it off). Very little in the way of manufactured goods is still made or exporting outside of Asia (mostly China). Boycotting them would mean having to recreate from scratch the entire manufacturing base of your country and having to completely redefine modern retail (no more Walmarts or malls), and that would take decades of economic suffering and scarcity to accomplish (though the end goal might well be worthwhile). No democratic society is going to put up with that kind of hardship for that long just to flip China off.
The Tea Party is just an expression by a lot of voters of the frustration they have with the corrupt government (which you apparently are a big fan of) which has enacted deficit spending to levels unheard of in history, which has only served to bail out rich people and done nothing for regular middle-class (or lower) people.
The problem with the Tea Partiers is that this is only what many of them THINK they are. In actual reality, they're just dupes. The Republican Party is using them to cause trouble for the Obama administration and Democrats in Congess. The very same Republicans who doubled the national debt in their time in office are now using these dupes to try to handcuff the Democratic administration so they can't get any reform passed ("It costs too much") and can't get anything done to get us out of the recession that their free market, de-regulation thinking got us into in the first place (so that in 2012 they'll be able to say "See, we're still in a recession!").
If you want to see who's *really* behind the Tea Partiers, just watch how fast the movement shrivels and dies the second the Republicans are back in charge. Once the Republicans are back in charge, it will be spending spree time again and all those Tea Baggers will find that the funding for their conventions, protests, and rallies has mysteriously dried up.
Any amount sufficient to put him through an acting class would be a worthwhile investment. For that matter, throw in a few directing classes for Roland Emmerich while you're splurging. But (and this is a REALLY crazy idea), I think they might be even better served this time by spending at least 1/100th of the money on the actual screenplay that they're spending on catering.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, genetically speaking, there are only three "races": European, African, and Asian. Every other ethnic group is some sort of mix or variation.
A good start would be a "loser pays" system similar to what they have in much of Europe. It gives people who legitimately have a strong case a chance to find a lawyer, and discourages frivolous lawsuits and lawsuits aimed only at intimidation (so-called "SLAP" lawsuits).
Not caring and not being naive are two very different things. There are ways to change certain aspects of the system, but appealing to Congress's sense of morality is not one of them--especially in an era of ridiculously expensive election campaigns that absolutely depend on corporate and special interest sponsorship.
I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, I have some bad news for you.
Most lawyers work for money. It's nice to think that the little guy in the right can take on the big guy and wins in court. But real life isn't a movie. Most of the time the little guy fighting a case like this ends up broke, whether he wins or loses. It's also nice to think that he could just go to the EFF and get a lawyer for free, but something tells me it's not that simple (I suspect the EFF is already swamped with what few lawyers they have).
The only way to "score a jackpot" in a case like this is to have it declared a civil rights case (meaning the losing party has to pay the lawyer's fees of the winner), and that doesn't seem very likely here.
Sure, I'll just go to Congress and explain to them that they should pass a law that will be universally opposed by the corporations that give them millions in campaign contributions every year--because it's the right thing to do.
Either way it's a lose-lose situation. Don't buy the game, the developer will go console-only and abandon the franchise on PC's. Buy the game, and they'll be like "See, people don't mind our DRM." About the only way to win is to support smaller studios and lesser-known franchises that don't include draconian DRM, but that will mean having to suck it up and give up on the bigger franchises that most gamers want. You're not going to be able to keep your Call of Duty franchises or your EA Sports titles if you do this.
Did this guy really think he could just give away the data that Facebook sells (or intends to sell) to third parties and NOT have them sue him for it? It's no secret that the business model of most of the social sites and big search engines factor in the massive amounts of data they collect on users as a major corporate asset, to be used internally for data mining and also sold (supposedly after being anonymized) to advertisers and other third parties. It takes a babe in the woods to think he can just waltz in and take that away with a "But your robot.txt didn't say I *couldn't* do it" defense, without expecting a big legal fight.
Is the guy in the right? Probably. Would he have a case? Probably. Does either of those facts matter if he doesn't have the big $ needed to hire lawyers and fight through several courts? Nope.
I know that romanticizing the noble soldiers and Marines is all the rage, but I've worked with a lot of these guys, and some of them *are* actually scum. That's not most of them, but there are more than a few I've met who actually seem to get their rocks off on trigger time, and are WAY too trigger happy for an environment with so many civilians walking around. Why do you think the military command makes them get permission to start shooting, or has rules of engagement in the first place?
They're too busy covering Tiger Woods' latest admissions about his dick to bother with unimportant stuff like this.
Now that's it's been posted, they likely won't bother with targeting this particular video (it's already all over the place). But you can bet they'll be targeting Wikileaks in the future though, to prevent other embarrassing videos and documents from being released.
I was under the impression that gunships were primarily sold to the military as tank and armor killers. The kind of ammo they use would seem to be overkill for civilian targets. They would be better off carrying smaller caliber ammo and more of it if that was their main function.
It's fine to develop a whole new category of devices. But if you're going to do so, it follows that you should start by at least defining who your audience is and what the purpose of the device is. And many of us simply can't figure out the point of this thing. Of course the die-hard Macheads would happily shell out cash if Steve Jobs took a crap on a plate and sold it as the iShit, but why should someone who's not just an Apple fan in general want one? So it's not an iPhone or a netbook, okay that's fine, but what exactly is it then and why should we buy it? Aside from some typical Apple doublespeak, I've yet to hear a good answer.
I think we should be a little more mature than to spend the significant resources needed to mount a manned Mars mission just so we can say "Hey, we did it!" And, even so, it's inaccurate to say that the early space race was about saying "We did it!" anyway. It would be more accurate to say that it was Soviets saying "Take that, capitalists!" followed by Americans saying "Take that, commies!" Only after-the-fact did we figure out that those satellites that we sent up there to show-up each other actually had practical uses beyond just the pissing contest.
A manned mission to the moon or Mars has little in the way of practical value, by comparison. In retrospect, Sputnik was WAY more important than Apollo. Sputnik paved the way for communications satellites, GPS, etc. Apollo did give us some useful mirrors on the moon, but they could have been put there much easier with unmanned craft.
Slashdot on April 1st is like a werewolf. It turns from something cool and likable into something hideous and evil for a 24-hour period. Thank god it only comes once a year and not once every full moon.
I don't know why I'm buying it. I don't know what I will use it for. I just know that somehow it will make me cooler and more hip.
It's not like it will accomplish nothing. It will get you on the terrorist watch list. That's something, right?
Are you too sexy for his criticism?
He was played in a movie by the guy from Blade Runner *and* Battlestar Galactica.
Movies like "Men in Black" have a more self-conscience sense of humor about themselves that earns them a great deal more tolerance. Movies like "Independence Day" that sell themselves as more serious action movies are expected to have a least a little plausibility in the real world. Aside from the usual problems with a weak script and poor direction, it probably didn't help that Independence Day was loaded with obnoxious product placement (it was like watching a 2 hour long Apple commercial) and other such cynical nods to the fact that the movie was just a crass money grab made by people who could have cared less whether the movie was actually any good or not.
Unfortunately, decades of corporate dominance in the western world have made an embargo of China pretty much impossible. Any country that tried this would face economic collapse (even the whole EU united probably couldn't pull it off). Very little in the way of manufactured goods is still made or exporting outside of Asia (mostly China). Boycotting them would mean having to recreate from scratch the entire manufacturing base of your country and having to completely redefine modern retail (no more Walmarts or malls), and that would take decades of economic suffering and scarcity to accomplish (though the end goal might well be worthwhile). No democratic society is going to put up with that kind of hardship for that long just to flip China off.
Not as much as DJ Jazzy Jeff.
The problem with the Tea Partiers is that this is only what many of them THINK they are. In actual reality, they're just dupes. The Republican Party is using them to cause trouble for the Obama administration and Democrats in Congess. The very same Republicans who doubled the national debt in their time in office are now using these dupes to try to handcuff the Democratic administration so they can't get any reform passed ("It costs too much") and can't get anything done to get us out of the recession that their free market, de-regulation thinking got us into in the first place (so that in 2012 they'll be able to say "See, we're still in a recession!").
If you want to see who's *really* behind the Tea Partiers, just watch how fast the movement shrivels and dies the second the Republicans are back in charge. Once the Republicans are back in charge, it will be spending spree time again and all those Tea Baggers will find that the funding for their conventions, protests, and rallies has mysteriously dried up.
Any amount sufficient to put him through an acting class would be a worthwhile investment. For that matter, throw in a few directing classes for Roland Emmerich while you're splurging. But (and this is a REALLY crazy idea), I think they might be even better served this time by spending at least 1/100th of the money on the actual screenplay that they're spending on catering.